1. Miller had to rescue his newly formed amino acids after each electric shock.. As the next electric shock would fry them2. There was only about 3% of the resulting "muck", was amino acids.. The rest was tar and other compounds toxic to LIFE...3. (I am going on memory for this, please forgive me), Miller used ammonium gas as that is what is assumed to be in the atmosphere in "pre-life times" there was an absense of OXYGEN... However this ammonium gas breaks down under UV light..... Yet there was no ozone to stop UV light.... But if there were Ozone / oxygen then the amino acids would oxidise....

It fails if there is oxygen, and it fails if there isn't oxygen

I have heard a number of creationists talking about the toxic created in that experiment, and it makes no sense. In the context of Millers amino acids, they are not toxic. They're actually necessary building blocks for biochemical compounds. May I also bring up the Murchison meteorite. Over 100 amino acids were found on it, which were able to survive outer space. In comparison, the Earth ain't so difficult. By the way Miller "rescuing" the amino acids was a simulation of the oceans. In early Earth, the atmosphere was pretty crazy. It is possible life originated in geothermal vents - that would stop the UV. Although someone else will have to clarify that further, I'm no expert on Abiogenesis.

Out of all of these only number 5 is used in my Biology textbook for Uni... (Yet it is the 1 I have the most problems with as it is not benefitial to have a sickle cell anemia which will kill you anyway)

First of all people with sickle cell can receive medical treatment. Secondly, if the individual receives it from only one parent and is heterozygous, they experience a milder condition and can leave completely normal lives if they avoid extreme exertion. Thirdly, people that have sickle cell disease occurs most commonly in people where (or descendents were) malaria is most common. There is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). As I already said, it decreases chances of getting malaria.

1- Antibiotic resistance is change yes... However it is microevolution, at the end of the day, bacteria is still bacteria, it hasn't changed. Also we cannot be 100% sure that these changes are due to random mutations, (not ALL change is evolution, stop thinking this way), as bacteria are able to swap and share genes via plasmids.. As such a bacteria may have already had the genetic information for the resistance and just spread it to its mates. Also due to this clasifying a bacteria species is nigh on impossible as they readily change their DNA from these plasmids... Perhaps utilising the Bible, in regards to placing bacteria as a single kind would be prudent

So you're saying all bacteria have every possible form of antibiotic etc, stashed away somewhere to fight it? The vast majority of the bacteria die and usually only one or two are the ones that have the resistance - they then proliferate until the entire population is now resistant.

2- This is a format of natural selection, but how does resistance to a type of chemical, equate to becoming a new species?

I never said it was becoming a new species. I said it was a beneficial mutation. Some insects are now resistant to certain pesticides due to mutations.

3- I do not know that much about HIV immunity, perhaps you can show how it proves evolution thanks

I was talking about random mutations first of all, not evolution. There is a genetic mutation that prevents the HIV virus from entering a cell.

4- Lactose intolerance is not beneficial, yes it is change. However people who are lactose intolerant are NOT "evolving". Otherwise we'd say people who are born with extra legs / arms are evolving or how about Downs Syndrome or all the other genetic DISORDERS out there.

I never said they were evolving. I was talking about mutations. Lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young.

5- As mentioned before genetic disorders are NOT benefitical. Your example would be neutral at best. Though in comparison to a healthy person, your example is detrimental.

Not all genetic disorders are beneficial, obviously. My example was beneficial if it was heterozygous - which is more likely. There was a slight disadvantage, but nothings perfect. An increased resistance to malaria in tropical or sub-tropical regions is beneficial.

My question is how did these functions "evolve" over millions of years via benefitial mutations.

Just like in bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Once a random mutation occurs that offers a slight advantage, it spreads throughout the population. The population then has that gene - and the process occurs again. Anyway, that's a different discussion and I suggest we don't overload this thread.

For example- Our stomach digests the food we eat, after this the mushed food is sent to the small intestine, however not before telling the pancreas to produce NaOH to counter the acids from the stomach that are being passed down with the food... Also the pancreas adds other digestive fluids into Also the glucose and minerals that are extracted from the food are sent to the Liver... Why?... Because the liver allows for a gradual intake of these molecules into the blood. As my lectuer said, if we dumped all the glucose into the blood at once it would cause MAJOR problems with our body. Since our brain is built to keep everything regular a gradual intake is necessary...

I addressed everything and you didn't like it. So evidently because I didn't answer the way you view the world, I therefore didn't answer it ?????? Your point about the blind forces of randomness in the Pebbles thread is directly related to those same forces you insist cause random mutations to be beneficial in evolution. Trying to now claim separation of both of those as separate issues is spin-doctoring and smokescreening.

Sigh. No you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. You only started talking about DNA. When I gave my sieve analogy, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain why it was wrong Ã¢â‚¬â€œ just that it was wrong. Here is what you said: Ã¢â‚¬Å“ You keep parroting the same definitions over and over again and again as if printed enough times makes it so. Your flour sieve design theory does not explain the blind luck for which the personification lable for Natural Selection is diliberately rigged to mislead. Blind pointless indifference can't select anything. It's also a poor excuse for explaining proper selection which is done through intelligent living things , be it a man or creatures with encoded instructions of instinct inside their DNA. It's still randomness no matter how you want to look at it. It's as if you believe that if you parrot this 100 times over and over , eventually it somehow becomes engraved in stone as a truth for no other reason than others are drowned out in the discussion and leave. Your understanding of evolution and all it's supposed wonderful componants is old school Darwinisnism. It is not the modern day understanding of just how intelligently and purposed goal driven DNA actually works.Ã¢â‚¬ÂI only wanted you to explain why the filtration mechanisms are so vastly different. Nothing else. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Randomness implies disorder. And that is the case with mutations. They are random and therefore messy. But their randomness is what gives life its variety, and without them - evolution could not work. To reuse my sieve analogy, a sieve adopts a filtering mechanism via a wired mesh. Life adopts a filtering mechanism via death. Both are unconscious and inadvertent and without any deliberate intent. The only flour that gets through the sieve is the flour that is powdery. The lumps are separated and remain in the sieve. The only life that gets through natural selection is life which is well adapted to its environment. The organisms that are not well adapted die off before they can produce progeny. So the detrimental mutations are separated from the population via death. To sum up, the sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh. Natural selections dividing mechanism is death.

Now, that is what I would like you to address.Ã¢â‚¬Â

___

None of those examples are the results of random mutations. Random mutations cause sickness, tumors, cancer, death and extinctions. Those examples are nothing more than organisms engineering themselves for specific task functions and most of it forced upon them by the same selfishness and greed that continue to plague ongoing human activities of self determination. I hardly think anyone with cickle cell anemia consider it an advantage considering the other degenerative consequences. Give malaria the credit for not destroying itself by combining with a flaw.

Why not? How do you explain microevolution if you don't accept beneficial random mutations? How the organisms "engineering themselves"? I've already answered sickle cell trait above. Give it a read so I don't have to repeat myself.

None of those links are appropriate to explaining your side of the issue of randomness. That first one lists P.Z. Meyers as some unbiased scientist ???????? blink.gif Nothing in those links proved that anything random caused anything beneficial. It's all ASSUMED. Any so-called new material is simply assumed to be random because they don't really know how the system works and it is spun as such randomness as being the cause because of a commitment to evolutionary dogma. Most people are not aware that their trust in science requires faith in things that are unprovable. I'll be upfront about it, faith is required, but it's a faith based on facts and experience in real life. I think science can be very trustworthy if done openly and honestly without bias from either side. Unfortunately we do not live in that kind of world where careers need to be maintained and monies for precious research needs to be beg for by catering to the political correctness of the times we live in. Therefore references to the E-word are a must, which is nothing more than placing a pich of incense and sprinkling it before the alter of the god Darwin.

Everyone of those links and the cited geniuses are nothing more than evolutionary shills for propagating a religious worldview philosophy. Talkorigins - skepticfiles - wired.com ??????? unbiased ??????? Puleeeaase dry.gif

In that first article, explain where P.Z Meyers is wrong. The 3 links were oberved instances of speciation. Speciation is a result of gradual changes. Please point out to me where the links make obvious assumption errors.

Other than that, Yawn! This is a complete lie and ignorant untruth. Information is NOT a bottom up phenomena. Francis Crick & James Watson's "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" only proved that protein molecules and the material substrate componants that make them up are completely controlled only by the information contained within DNA and any manufacture of more, even specific protein molecules come only from the instructions encoded on the protein molecules of the DNA itself and not the other way around. The genetic Information is a real language and all language we know the origin of comes from a mind. There is nothing physical about information. Therefore we have 100% inference that the brilliant encoded information contained within DNA comes from a designer. We have zero inference that it comes from the evolution of nothing more than random blind forces of physics and chemicals. Your inability to explain this continues to show your blind faith in what cannot be proved. The only thing we can assume is that you just may be more religious than I am.

Why is it a lie? Why must DNA come first? Why is it impossible for RNA or simple replicating compounds to come first? Abiogenesis does NOT state that DNA spontanously arrived. It states that it could have evolved from a simple replicator (possibly RNA - since it can catalyze its own duplication), and that itself could have come about via simpler substances, such as peptide nucleic acids.

Admittedly it takes great leaps of faith on both sides to produce any answer to the question of the origin of DNA. The leap to a creator is a shorter one however, because we have operational communications systems all around us in everyday life. We understand and relate to them and know how they function. The genetic operating systems within DNA are an even more complex, multi-layered code with dozens of linguistic properties which far surpass anything humans have invented or created. Unfortunately for position, your leap faith to randomness and chance are an infinite Grand Canyon.

The idea of a creator is much simpler as everything can come down to "God did it" without asking how. That's not science and gets us nowhere.Once again, you seem to be assuming that science claims that DNA came about via spontaneous generation.

Again, Hubert Yockey is very critical of the primordial soup theory of the origin of life, and believes that "the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem". At least the man's honest about that. There is no reason to address anything here as I believe gilbo12345 gave a very reasonable response and with very logical and rational questions. The Miller-Urey experiments in reality had zero to do with evolution as they merely provided proof in Intelligent Design by designers with purpose and intent. Nice try though.

I don't see why it would be unsolvable. There's no point in asking science to not try anyway.

I only wanted you to explain why the filtration mechanisms are so vastly different. Nothing else. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Randomness implies disorder. And that is the case with mutations. They are random and therefore messy. But their randomness is what gives life its variety, and without them - evolution could not work. To reuse my sieve analogy, a sieve adopts a filtering mechanism via a wired mesh. Life adopts a filtering mechanism via death. Both are unconscious and inadvertent and without any deliberate intent. The only flour that gets through the sieve is the flour that is powdery. The lumps are separated and remain in the sieve. The only life that gets through natural selection is life which is well adapted to its environment. The organisms that are not well adapted die off before they can produce progeny. So the detrimental mutations are separated from the population via death. To sum up, the sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh. Natural selections dividing mechanism is death.

Now, that is what I would like you to address.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Your version of the Natural Selection should rather be called "Natural Chanced Weeding". This has nothing to do with the natural world and how it really works, but rather philosophical idealogical religious dogma.

Here's some interesting points on the biblical acknowledging reference to chance and selection componants of the natural world. Notice that all things can be equal. It's not simply a weeding of weaker, but also fittest as well.

Matthew 13:3-8 is of course the parable of the Sower of fine seed. There are various scenarios of environmental conditions for which any farmer (Israel was an agrarian society) would understand perfectly. Interestingly all the seed sown was perfectly healthy, there were no flaws or mutated mistakes to show that some would fail because of random mutations. Of course the illustration was to be taken symbolically because the various types of soils represented the heart condition and response to the Kingdom message, but still it acknowledges environmental factors and everything on the planet is subject to environmental changes, that's not a tuffy.

The other mention of chance is mentioned at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (Amplified Bible)

11 "I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, neither is bread to the wise nor riches to men of intelligence and understanding nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."

Interestingly in both cases the fittest has just as equal a chance of losing as some perceived weaker one. There is no power of a mightier one over the other when it comes to unforeseen circumstances. I've found this with seed when I use to collect it for the forestry and some native southwestern plants nurseries. Viable strong healthy seed can be found everywhere after a natural disaster like say a fire. However, there is another engineered componant built inside all eco-systems. Pathogens were incorporated into all eco-systems to control over successes. Otherwise we'd never have healthy beautiful old growth forests. We'd have nothing but stunted forests of weed like trees to densely populated for even wildlife to use. That in itself has zero to do with blind chanced natural selection of weeding out of the perceived weaker things since all were completely healthy and strong to begin with.

Your seive ananolgy does not account for all of the engineered and purposed correction mechanisms which are actually living things themselves. The two biblical examples do talk about your raw blind chance circumstance, but nature is also a billion times more sophisticated than that in it's environmental correction mechanisms. You could take 10 trillion years and never accomplish in nature what you claim is nothing more than blind chance happy outcomes through nothing more than a unintelligible seive. I spent 24 years studying forest ecosystems and especially the healthy microbiological componants (bacterial and fungal along with other insect and other animal creatures which contribute) in forest soils which guide them. I also put to practice the things I learned by engineering landscape in San Diego EXACTLY as I knew them to operate in the wild no matter what the eco-environmental design using specific plants according to life zones. In every case I was successful and didn't have to use chemical fertilizers or pesticides as recommended and demanded by the scientific Green Revolution gang. So please don't tell me that my 35 years of experience is trumped by your few years of studying Atheist websites professing to have acquired the ultimate truth. Maybe the discussion needs to be directed on interpretations of what true logic and rational thinking truly are.

Why not? How do you explain microevolution if you don't accept beneficial random mutations? How the organisms "engineering themselves"?

Here's what you need to do since you appently believe you've got the absolute truth which amazingly has only taken you a mere 16 years to acquire as opposed to the decades of research by scientific minds. You need to contact all the scientist/geneticists who are running all the genome projects around the globe and start a campaign of re-education towards your random protoplasmic cell worldview. Clearly their use of Linguistic Analysis (Tools that we commonly use to analyze languages are continually being used to figure out what all of those genes actually mean) in analyzing the genome is completely out of wack with your version of the truth. They apparently are under a false assumption that DNA is a language. They are under the false assumption that cells actually engineer or maintain improved blueprints for environmental survival. Their claim that the genetic information contained within DNA devotes massive amounts of resources to destroy all mistakes and copying errors through redundancy correction mechanisms is completely delusional. Once again, this seems to be nothing more than a Pontius Pilate What Is Truth? debate.

Why is it a lie? Why must DNA come first? Why is it impossible for RNA or simple replicating compounds to come first? Abiogenesis does NOT state that DNA spontanously arrived. It states that it could have evolved from a simple replicator (possibly RNA - since it can catalyze its own duplication), and that itself could have come about via simpler substances, such as peptide nucleic acids.

DNA (information) apparently without any directed goal driven purpose with massive amounts of intent has no other option but to blindly arrive spontaneously according to your worldview philosophy. The core problem with a naturalistic philosophy of materialistic science is that matter and energy all by themselves cannot produce information. Information is stored and transmitted by means of matter and energy, but information itself is NEITHER matter nor energy. You obviously and emphatically disagree. Even your own personal slanted version of evolution requires replication. Without replication evolution never happens. The instructions for replication ONLY come from information contained inside DNA. Therefore, please cite us an empirical scientific experiment that proves that an intelligent informational code results from nothing more than chemicals and physics.

The idea of a creator is much simpler as everything can come down to "God did it" without asking how. That's not science and gets us nowhere.

Here's something that is also NOT science. When the gaps are impossible for atheistic evolutionists to explain, they conveniently invented bogus terms like Vestigial Organs and Junk DNA to spin and hide the total tonage of what they don't know. That not only gets us nowhere, but real scientific discovery has been held back for decades because of such pride and arrogance.

Once again, you seem to be assuming that science claims that DNA came about via spontaneous generation.

Science and Scientists have nothing to do with this. Evolutionists however have to insist on this since if there is no creator there is simply no other choice than spontaneous information from non-living mater through physics and chemicals.

I think Universities and other colleges of most academics have the same problem of a condescending intellectual lording it over those perceived inferior and they usually by their approach continually remind students of that. No body benefits from that kind of approach. I have to admit that Carl Sagan was an individual who could come down to the average persons level and make them feel interested in a subject that would otherwise be boring.

I have to somewhat disagree only because of recent events. I recently, as recent as Monday the 24th, have started to go back to college for my degree in Studio Arts: Emphasis in Painting. One of the first classes I'm taking right now is Principles in Biology and the approach that the professor is taking is one I havn't encountered before and I will say it is very effective. He'll explain the topics in a purely biological approach but then he'll immediately give an example to what he means on a level to which a high schooler could understand and he does this while making it fun and interesting, yet informative.

Last year at a scientific conference I attended here in Europe there was one researcher who was so intellectual that he lost almost everyone with nothing but physics calculations and theories on the chalk board. It wasn't till some of us kept asking, but what is the real world applications of this. During the breaks it was clear that he didn't have many social interactive skills, he was a sort of loner.

I do agree with you that a lot of researchers, scientists, and even artists are loners. It takes a certain mindset that most people will shy away from because a lot of your time is spent in your head. I spend most of the day in my head and find it very hard to convert my thoughts into a sentence that describes exactly what I'm thinking, but I find it very easy to express my very detailed thoughts about art and science onto paper which about a year ago turned towards biology. Here's an example of one of my biological drawings, and I have to tell you that I spent a lot of time in my head and away from friends and family:

But his accent and demeaner made him seem like a sort of German Einstein that no average person could even hopr or famthom getting close to. Sadly I think some believe that is the way things are supposed to be.

Everyone has their quirks, but when one of those quirks is social awkwardness it always comes off as arrogance. I am very socially awkward and I also have social anxiety and I always come off as arrogant or cocky, only because it's hard for me in social situations, but when individuals get to know me they find out very fast that I will go out of my way to explain things or more importanly help them out with their troubles.

I do agree with you that a lot of researchers, scientists, and even artists are loners. It takes a certain mindset that most people will shy away from because a lot of your time is spent in your head. I spend most of the day in my head and find it very hard to convert my thoughts into a sentence that describes exactly what I'm thinking, but I find it very easy to express my very detailed thoughts about art and science onto paper which about a year ago turned towards biology. Here's an example of one of my biological drawings, and I have to tell you that I spent a lot of time in my head and away from friends and family:

I have to admit that I can easily gravitate towards being a loner. Mostly because even while growing up I never liked the nature of the way people (well other kids) treated each other. While other kids were playing sports (which I hated) , I was up in the mountains (often alone) behind my parents house just meditating and wondering about things in the wild. I'm still that way, but by meditation I'm not refering to the mind emptying meditation of eastern philosophy, but the actual digestion of research study material, it's application and observations in real life. Many of those years up in the mountains I was often alone, which when looking back was in some cases stupid as I was younger and more daring. ( you know the years when you're immortal ) I don't know how many times i was almost bitten by rattlesnakes 3 hours away from any remote civilization. I rely more on people and enjoy company now, but there are moments when I miss certain things, for example I miss the rural country life. I hate city environs no matter what country. They feel like a prison to my nature.

Your illustration reminds me of the earliest naturalist artistic renderings of nature before photography. Many of those early naturalists were extremely gifted that artistic way. Shows what a person can do when there's no television, internet, starbucks, etc, etc, etc.

Everyone has their quirks, but when one of those quirks is social awkwardness it always comes off as arrogance. I am very socially awkward and I also have social anxiety and I always come off as arrogant or cocky, only because it's hard for me in social situations, but when individuals get to know me they find out very fast that I will go out of my way to explain things or more importanly help them out with their troubles.

Please don't think that I believed him to be arrogant. He wasn't, but his intellectual understanding (which mostly was mathematical equations on a chalk board) admittedly way beyond my understanding. Not that i wouldn't be able to understand, but a simplification of terminology and illustrations that I could have related to in real life experience would have been a help. I've sen this when I work with African students. If I can learn something about their life and culture, then illustrations/expressions will come more easily. I have to admit that some of the illustrations I've used drawing from my background and culture have lost a few of them.

Your illustration reminds me of the earliest naturalist artistic renderings of nature before photography. Many of those early naturalists were extremely gifted that artistic way. Shows what a person can do when there's no television, internet, starbucks, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks on the comment. Unfortunately because of my ADHD I have to have a television on or some other form of distraction while I'm drawing because if I don't then I get to detailed which quickly turns into an obsession with one line; the t.v. definitely prevents me from doing that.

Please don't think that I believed him to be arrogant. He wasn't, but his intellectual understanding (which mostly was mathematical equations on a chalk board) admittedly way beyond my understanding. Not that i wouldn't be able to understand, but a simplification of terminology and illustrations that I could have related to in real life experience would have been a help. I've sen this when I work with African students. If I can learn something about their life and culture, then illustrations/expressions will come more easily. I have to admit that some of the illustrations I've used drawing from my background and culture have lost a few of them.

I completely agree. I believe a major problem with science and mathematics is the amount of terminology and definitions and because of this there becomes a rift of misunderstanding and miscommunication. I didn't think you were being arrogant, I actually think somewhat like you do in this instance.

Your version of the Natural Selection should rather be called "Natural Chanced Weeding". This has nothing to do with the natural world and how it really works, but rather philosophical idealogical religious dogma.

You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explained why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong yet. I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t comparing a sieve to evolution Ã¢â‚¬â€œ only a sieve to natural selection. They are both utilizing filtration, a sieves being a wired mesh, Natural Selections being non-random death. Can you explain to me why the processes are so vastly different? And only by referring to that example Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not by spouting insults or even other aspects of evolution. This is all that I want to clarify as of yet.

Interestingly in both cases the fittest has just as equal a chance of losing as some perceived weaker one. There is no power of a mightier one over the other when it comes to unforeseen circumstances. I've found this with seed when I use to collect it for the forestry and some native southwestern plants nurseries. Viable strong healthy seed can be found everywhere after a natural disaster like say a fire. However, there is another engineered componant built inside all eco-systems. Pathogens were incorporated into all eco-systems to control over successes. Otherwise we'd never have healthy beautiful old growth forests. We'd have nothing but stunted forests of weed like trees to densely populated for even wildlife to use. That in itself has zero to do with blind chanced natural selection of weeding out of the perceived weaker things since all were completely healthy and strong to begin with.

And the organisms in the population that lose the original beneficial mutation die out due to them being unable to compete.There is a great Ã¢â‚¬Å“power of the mightier oneÃ¢â‚¬Â. Competition is quite important...I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see where you were going with that last point. It fits in perfectly well with natural selection. If an organism becomes overly adapted / doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t die it ends up overpopulating and wiping out the resources and food source which results in the population dying out altogether or to resume a natural balance. So this fits in perfectly well with evolution. And once again, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not natural selection thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s random. The mutations are random. Natural selection is just an unconscious, blind filtration system Ã¢â‚¬â€œ like a sieve.

Your seive ananolgy does not account for all of the engineered and purposed correction mechanisms which are actually living things themselves. The two biblical examples do talk about your raw blind chance circumstance, but nature is also a billion times more sophisticated than that in it's environmental correction mechanisms. You could take 10 trillion years and never accomplish in nature what you claim is nothing more than blind chance happy outcomes through nothing more than a unintelligible seive.

Actually, it does. You just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to understand why IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m using it. What is bad, dies. What is good, survives. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think I can simplify it past that. Natural Selection filters populations via survival and death; sieves filter flour consistency Ã¢â‚¬â€œ powder and lumps via a wired mesh. That was the only comparison I was trying to make. Sophistication increases via gradual progression. Just like human technology. We started off with a wheel, which progressed to simple carts, and simple telegraphs etc. We now have rocket engines and a global telecommunications network.

I spent 24 years studying forest ecosystems and especially the healthy microbiological componants (bacterial and fungal along with other insect and other animal creatures which contribute) in forest soils which guide them. I also put to practice the things I learned by engineering landscape in San Diego EXACTLY as I knew them to operate in the wild no matter what the eco-environmental design using specific plants according to life zones. In every case I was successful and didn't have to use chemical fertilizers or pesticides as recommended and demanded by the scientific Green Revolution gang. So please don't tell me that my 35 years of experience is trumped by your few years of studying Atheist websites professing to have acquired the ultimate truth. Maybe the discussion needs to be directed on interpretations of what true logic and rational thinking truly are.

Other than the presumptuous ad hom attack, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see where youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re going with this.

DNA (information) apparently without any directed goal driven purpose with massive amounts of intent has no other option but to blindly arrive spontaneously according to your worldview philosophy.

No, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve completely warped both what I said and what science claims. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what you quoted and ignored in my post: Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Abiogenesis does NOT state that DNA spontaneously arrived. It states that it could have evolved from a simple replicator (possibly RNA - since it can catalyze its own duplication), and that itself could have come about via simpler substances, such as peptide nucleic acids.Ã¢â‚¬Â

The core problem with a naturalistic philosophy of materialistic science is that matter and energy all by themselves cannot produce information. Information is stored and transmitted by means of matter and energy, but information itself is NEITHER matter nor energy. You obviously and emphatically disagree. Even your own personal slanted version of evolution requires replication. Without replication evolution never happens. The instructions for replication ONLY come from information contained inside DNA. Therefore, please cite us an empirical scientific experiment that proves that an intelligent informational code results from nothing more than chemicals and physics.

Are you saying that all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“informationÃ¢â‚¬Â in DNA is stored in energy? And I agree with you that without replication and variation, evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen. Thankfully, it does happen Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and if it didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, we wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be here to talk about it. However your next point is false. Replication can occur in extremely simple compounds without any DNA involved. Replication has happened with RNA compounds, and even without RNA. Basic self replicating molecules have been created in the lab. Google it. As I said already, just like everything in regards to evolution (and human technological and artistic development), DNA also came about via gradual progression of increasing complexity. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Science and Scientists have nothing to do with this. Evolutionists however have to insist on this since if there is no creator there is simply no other choice than spontaneous information from non-living mater through physics and chemicals. Oh my, you made this way too easy. I don't believe it even requires a response or commentary.

Did you even read what I said? Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Once again, you seem to be assuming that science claims that DNA came about via spontaneous generation.Ã¢â‚¬ÂScience does not claim DNA came about via spontaneous generation. Please tell me where youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re getting that from. And science and scientists have everything to do with this. Is how life started not a valid scientific enquiry? Or should science just cast it off as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“god did itÃ¢â‚¬Â scenario and leave it as a no-go area?

And I would like to know why the link doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t require a response.

Now if you had said Miller observed it having spontaneously evolved , well that'd be different.

You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explained why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong yet. I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t comparing a sieve to evolution Ã¢â‚¬â€œ only a sieve to natural selection. They are both utilizing filtration, a sieves being a wired mesh, Natural Selections being non-random death. Can you explain to me why the processes are so vastly different? And only by referring to that example Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not by spouting insults or even other aspects of evolution.

This is simply more spining to nowhere. You clearly DO NOT understand how brilliantly DNA actually works because rather than going to school and researching responsibly, you are in fact loading up on propaganda literature from Dawkins , Meyers, Dennet , etc. Individuals who dropped science years ago and aimed at philosophy for no other reason than they HATE religion. I did compare the seive to your precious magic wand of Natural Selection and you simply didn't like the response. There's more going on in various ecosystems around the world than blind forces of physics and chemicals. All ecosystems have millions of living organisms which taken as a whole are engineered into the system that are programmed through their DNA to act as a natural balance mechanism. They not only rid the system intelligently of the weaker flaws to keep the natural world healthy, they also thin healthy populations that have no defects and you just can't seem to get that through your head that someone out there actually has real world experience that conflicts with what your biased belief system claims as truth, because I've actually seen for myself how nature really works.

What is bad, dies. What is good, survives. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think I can simplify it past that.

Absolutely untrue. Intelligently engineered mechanisms within nature thin what is good as well as deleting the bad and the mechanisms for doing so are other life form mechanisms, not blind forces of some mystical magic wand called natural selection.

Sophistication increases via gradual progression. Just like human technology. We started off with a wheel, which progressed to simple carts, and simple telegraphs etc. We now have rocket engines and a global telecommunications network.

You cannot compare the progress made by humans which is the result of intelligence with your blind pointless pitiless indifference scenario you claim to believe in and associate it with progress in nature. Blind randomness does NOT begat anything progressively intelligent.

Are you saying that all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“informationÃ¢â‚¬Â in DNA is stored in energy?

The information encoded on DNA are stored on the physical protein molecules which are themselve matter and energy. But the information contained in DNA is separate from the material in which it is stored. Information is thoughts, ideas, plans, words, letters, paragraphs, etc that come from a mind. These words you are reading are physical in the sense they are transmitted on a physical medium, but they are subject only to me. Unless someone comes along and hacks the site and messes with them. DNA is the exact same type of communications operational system that accomplishes purposed goals for which it was designed.

Replication can occur in extremely simple compounds without any DNA involved. Replication has happened with RNA compounds, and even without RNA. Basic self replicating molecules have been created in the lab. Google it. As I said already, just like everything in regards to evolution (and human technological and artistic development), DNA also came about via gradual progression of increasing complexity.

Physical elements replicating via a chemcial catalyst have ZERO to do with encrypted language instructions encoded in DNA for the process of replication. I have asked you repeatedly to prove by an empirical scientific experiment how scientists were able to create a written code by nothing more than chemicals and physics. Thus far you have diliberately deflected from this.

Or should science just cast it off as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“god did itÃ¢â‚¬Â scenario and leave it as a no-go area?

No actually science already has an "Evo did It" shoe on the other foot of it's own scenario. It's called "Vestigial Organs" & "Junk DNA"

Miller observed the formation of amino acids using the probable conditions in an early Earth. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an interesting article:

Your response to Gilbo12345's explanation of the electric spark destroying the amino acids (and he was dead on with this) was that the amino acids jumped into water in order to rescue themselves. Your lack of knowledge on what actually happens exposes your complete ignorance of how detrimental even water is to amino acids. Next time do the homework so that you're not embarressed like this. Miller's experiment was flawed from the start for proving miracle random spontaneous life building blocks appearances. Miller used that spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids just as Gilbo12345 correctly stated! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. You (as well as many evolutionary scientists) claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Thus evolutionists seek to save the soup.

But for several reasons, to no avail. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. (But you didn't know that before you made that statement did you?) Also, if the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of decades of searching, the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup. Now while it's true that water IS esential for life, even protein molecules if they magically formed without genetic instructions for doing so would also be at risk just floating around in water because they too would degenerate. Why ?????? Because protein molecules of a cells membrane have a waxy coating or water repellant fats which protects the structure from degredation. Where does the waxy fatty coating come from ???????? Instructions for it's manufacture. Where do they come from ?????? You already know the answer to that.

Here's what Robert Shapiro (evolutionist) had to say about the complications involving water in the book, "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide".

"Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars."

Sorry again, but unfortunately your water theory just doesn't hold water either.

This is simply more spining to nowhere. You clearly DO NOT understand how brilliantly DNA actually works because rather than going to school and researching responsibly, you are in fact loading up on propaganda literature from Dawkins , Meyers, Dennet , etc. Individuals who dropped science years ago and aimed at philosophy for no other reason than they HATE religion. I did compare the seive to your precious magic wand of Natural Selection and you simply didn't like the response. There's more going on in various ecosystems around the world than blind forces of physics and chemicals. All ecosystems have millions of living organisms which taken as a whole are engineered into the system that are programmed through their DNA to act as a natural balance mechanism. They not only rid the system intelligently of the weaker flaws to keep the natural world healthy, they also thin healthy populations that have no defects and you just can't seem to get that through your head that someone out there actually has real world experience that conflicts with what your biased belief system claims as truth, because I've actually seen for myself how nature really works.

You do realize that this entire section here screams that

1. you accept random mutations occur.2. that sometimes there are beneficial mutations3. that a force exists that weeds out less desirable traits.

You almost sound like an evolutionist at this point. Although your posts do need to mellow out some before you are reported for you many attacks on us here.

You cannot compare the progress made by humans which is the result of intelligence with your blind pointless pitiless indifference scenario you claim to believe in and associate it with progress in nature. Blind randomness does NOT begat anything progressively intelligent.

Mutations random yes...which you already agree occur. Selective pressures are not so random.

-snip-

Sorry again, but unfortunately your water theory just doesn't hold water either.

Please offer us theory that does hold water, one that shows Creationism is a true fact without any holes or weaknesses. Until one can be produced then I will have to call this thing I keep on hearing about vaporware.

1. you accept random mutations occur.2. that sometimes there are beneficial mutations3. that a force exists that weeds out less desirable traits.

I have no idea here what you are talking about. I DO NOT accept random mutations except within the context of their being mistakes or copying errors.

I've already given the example of an intelligent sentence which might have been created incomplete without a period for proper punctuation. Run that sentence through an honest and properly programmed random mutation generator and you just might get a period on the first try, but that is the extent of it's random benefits. Beyond that it adds nothing of real usable value to the already intelligent sentence other than punctuation. The most obvious result would be numerous random copying errors which completely destroy the sentence into nonsense long before any period appeared. The sentence then becomes useless and consequently discarded as valueless.

You almost sound like an evolutionist at this point. Although your posts do need to mellow out some before you are reported for you many attacks on us here.[/B]

Maybe you should likewise warn your Celtic colleague who apparently has done the same thing to bobelever who bowed out of one discussion because of some of her condescending attacks. Call it both ways Ref.

Mutations random yes...which you already agree occur. Selective pressures are not so random.

Again, there are no random mutations. If there are any random mutations (mistakes) which show up by accident, then they are nothing more than copying errors and the error correction mechanisms within DNA if healthy will destroy and delete them.

Okay, to get this back on track again. Here's a newer term/expression to re-tool the bogus alluding of intelligence by the term Natural Selection (pressures?) . How about the expression, "Unspecified Natural Magic". Seriously, if it's not any type of intelligence, then the only other meaning is magic.

Please offer us theory that does hold water, one that shows Creationism is a true fact without any holes or weaknesses. Until one can be produced then I will have to call this thing I keep on hearing about vaporware.

Then you need to open an entirely different thread for that subject. Thus far this post has contributed zero to the O.P.

This is simply more spining to nowhere. You clearly DO NOT understand how brilliantly DNA actually works because rather than going to school and researching responsibly, you are in fact loading up on propaganda literature from Dawkins , Meyers, Dennet , etc. Individuals who dropped science years ago and aimed at philosophy for no other reason than they HATE religion. I did compare the seive to your precious magic wand of Natural Selection and you simply didn't like the response.

For the last time, I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t talking about DNA. I was trying to explain how Natural Selection works, since you keep casting it off as false and like a Ã¢â‚¬Å“magic wandÃ¢â‚¬Â. You did not address it specifically and you still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given a reason as to why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong. Take apart my quote piece by piece and explain why it is so false and inapplicable to natural selection.

There's more going on in various ecosystems around the world than blind forces of physics and chemicals. All ecosystems have millions of living organisms which taken as a whole are engineered into the system that are programmed through their DNA to act as a natural balance mechanism. They not only rid the system intelligently of the weaker flaws to keep the natural world healthy, they also thin healthy populations that have no defects and you just can't seem to get that through your head that someone out there actually has real world experience that conflicts with what your biased belief system claims as truth, because I've actually seen for myself how nature really works.

Ecosystems evolved via increasing complexity. DNA in species is not actively selecting or engineering its environment. That would require it to be conscious and intelligent in itself. Could you explain how DNA is actively and deliberately controlling the environment? To quote my last post:Ã¢â‚¬Å“ If an organism becomes overly adapted / doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t die it ends up overpopulating and wiping out the resources and food source which results in the population dying out altogether or to resume a natural balance. So this fits in perfectly well with evolution. And once again, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not natural selection thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s random. The mutations are random. Natural selection is just an unconscious, blind filtration system Ã¢â‚¬â€œ like a sieve.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Absolutely untrue. Intelligently engineered mechanisms within nature thin what is good as well as deleting the bad and the mechanisms for doing so are other life form mechanisms, not blind forces of some mystical magic wand called natural selection.

How is that untrue? If a gazelle is born with weaker legs and hence is slower than the rest of the pack Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it is much more likely to get eaten by the cheetah / other predators without passing on its genes and coinciding bad traits. Are you saying that the DNA in the gazelle actively programmed it to have weaker legs in order to maintain the balance? If so Ã¢â‚¬â€œ please explain how it realizes what the environment needs, how it reprogrammes itself in accordance with the environment and just how it works in general. You seem to think that the DNA in separate species is intelligently pruning and moderating nature. That is what is untrue. Species are only concerned about their own survival. If it reaches a point that they begin to upset the balance and hence have less resources Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the population decreases and the balance is restored. There is no intelligent process guiding the balance. It's simple math.

You cannot compare the progress made by humans which is the result of intelligence with your blind pointless pitiless indifference scenario you claim to believe in and associate it with progress in nature. Blind randomness does NOT begat anything progressively intelligent.

And this is exactly why I brought up my sieve analogy. Mutations are random, Natural Selection is not. It is a blind and inadvertent form of filtration via survival and death. And the only reason why I brought the progress made by humans up is to demonstrate increasing complexity via accumulative change which you keep ignoring.

Physical elements replicating via a chemcial catalyst have ZERO to do with encrypted language instructions encoded in DNA for the process of replication. I have asked you repeatedly to prove by an empirical scientific experiment how scientists were able to create a written code by nothing more than chemicals and physics. Thus far you have diliberately deflected from this.

You keep assuming that DNA is needed for all replication. It is not. Scientists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim that DNA was spawned spontaneously. Hence, they obviously have no experiment to generate something utilizing nothing but randomness. However, they do have experiments demonstrating the production of simple replicating compounds being generated via natural means. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a brief detour: http://www.talkorigi...CB/CB010_2.htmlNote Ã¢â‚¬Å“Emerging HypercyclesÃ¢â‚¬Â in particular.

Your response to Gilbo12345's explanation of the electric spark destroying the amino acids (and he was dead on with this) was that the amino acids jumped into water in order to rescue themselves. Your lack of knowledge on what actually happens exposes your complete ignorance of how detrimental even water is to amino acids. Next time do the homework so that you're not embarressed like this.

You have a serious issue with warping peoples words according to your prejudice, Eocene. I never said the amino acids Ã¢â‚¬Å“jumped into waterÃ¢â‚¬Â. Earths early atmosphere was volatile and unpredictable. The molecules would have been in constantly varying conditions.

Miller's experiment was flawed from the start for proving miracle random spontaneous life building blocks appearances. Miller used that spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids just as Gilbo12345 correctly stated! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. You (as well as many evolutionary scientists) claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Thus evolutionists seek to save the soup.

Miller used the spark to simulate lightning. How would they have shattered the amino acids? And what is your (reputable) source for him Ã¢â‚¬Å“building a trapÃ¢â‚¬Â? ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s another theory, Eocene. And they didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just Ã¢â‚¬Å“plungeÃ¢â‚¬Â into the ocean. They would have originated there, according to the theory. And for the record Ã¢â‚¬â€œ both the lightning and ultraviolet rays could have been significant contributing factors to the production of the amino acids. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think UV would have been that effective, since the simplicity of the amino acids Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know exactly where they formed Ã¢â‚¬â€œ so maybe they formed in sheltered, dark areas, although thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just me speculating.

But for several reasons, to no avail. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. (But you didn't know that before you made that statement did you?) Also, if the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of decades of searching, the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup. Now while it's true that water IS esential for life, even protein molecules if they magically formed without genetic instructions for doing so would also be at risk just floating around in water because they too would degenerate. Why ?????? Because protein molecules of a cells membrane have a waxy coating or water repellant fats which protects the structure from degredation. Where does the waxy fatty coating come from ???????? Instructions for it's manufacture. Where do they come from ?????? You already know the answer to that.

The compounds were extremely basic and probably scattered due to the volatile environment. It would be extremely difficult to find something as simple as a few basic compounds inside a rock, and ofcourse knowing the right rocks to look for would be quite difficult, I can imagine.

By the way Ã¢â‚¬â€œ youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re assuming what the primitive life forms were. All evolution needs to start is basic replication Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t require DNA. Why are you refusing to even acknowledge RNA or even simpler precursors? May I bring up the Murchison meteorite again Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it was found rich in organic compounds (such as amino acids) despite the heavy radiation in space.

Here's what Robert Shapiro (evolutionist) had to say about the complications involving water in the book, "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide".Sorry again, but unfortunately your water theory just doesn't hold water either.

May I add that according to Robert Shapiro, life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". So regardless of whether heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a supporter of the hydrothermal vent theory- he has still proposed another through natural means, and he doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t state that DNA is required for replication (which you do).Also Ã¢â‚¬â€œ one mans book doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t disprove it. If he scientifically did disprove it Ã¢â‚¬â€œ IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure science would recognise it. You would have to provide a paper disproving the possibility. There are numerous species of extremophiles and other organisms currently living immediately around deep-sea vents, which show that the temperature etc isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that much of a problem. And for the record Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know that much about Abiogenesis and you should be having this discussion with someone else. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not trying to back out Ã¢â‚¬â€œ itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just that my understanding of it is limited. I will always look for a scientific answer for things, unless God swoops down and supplies the evidence.

Maybe you should likewise warn your Celtic colleague who apparently has done the same thing to bobelever who bowed out of one discussion because of some of her condescending attacks. Call it both ways Ref.

Firstly - my behaviour is no excuse for yours.

Secondly, I didn't think I was being condescending - I apologize if it came out that way - it was not my intent. However, could you say where I was being condescending? (Not trying to derail - I would just like to pinpoint something that I did wrong so I know what not to repeat)

For the last time, I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t talking about DNA. I was trying to explain how Natural Selection works, since you keep casting it off as false and like a Ã¢â‚¬Å“magic wandÃ¢â‚¬Â. You did not address it specifically and you still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given a reason as to why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong. Take apart my quote piece by piece and explain why it is so false and inapplicable to natural selection.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“ If an organism becomes overly adapted / doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t die it ends up overpopulating and wiping out the resources and food source which results in the population dying out altogether or to resume a natural balance. So this fits in perfectly well with evolution. And once again, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not natural selection thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s random. The mutations are random. Natural selection is just an unconscious, blind filtration system Ã¢â‚¬â€œ like a sieve.Ã¢â‚¬Â

And this is exactly why I brought up my sieve analogy. Mutations are random, Natural Selection is not. It is a blind and inadvertent form of filtration via survival and death.

Your "Flour Seive" analogy is a greatly flawed comparison and you simply didn't like hearing that. Flour does not properly represent life struggling to preserve its own existence, only to have your "Flour Seive" ( Unspecified Natural Magic ) to weed out weaker from the fittest. There is no sense in which those flour particles or lumps of flour "struggle" to get through your sieve's mesh. Who or what is forcing them through ???? In actual real world baking, it's an intelligence that is doing this. Even a Flour Seive itself has to be manually sifted by hand by someone in order to work or by a machine which is of course created by an intelligent mind. LUCK does not select anything. Selection is something done as a conscious act by a living being (creature, human, animal or otherwise) and that's the whole point of of this thread and you've yet to prove anything, with the exception of just how strong your faith is in the light of falsifications to your worldview. You need a better analogy that illustrates blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent (LUCK). Thus far you have failed miserably.

How is that untrue? If a gazelle is born with weaker legs and hence is slower than the rest of the pack Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it is much more likely to get eaten by the cheetah / other predators without passing on its genes and coinciding bad traits. Are you saying that the DNA in the gazelle actively programmed it to have weaker legs in order to maintain the balance? If so Ã¢â‚¬â€œ please explain how it realizes what the environment needs, how it reprogrammes itself in accordance with the environment and just how it works in general. You seem to think that the DNA in separate species is intelligently pruning and moderating nature. That is what is untrue. Species are only concerned about their own survival. If it reaches a point that they begin to upset the balance and hence have less resources Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the population decreases and the balance is restored. There is no intelligent process guiding the balance. It's simple math.

It is you that says what governs life is random mutations (copying mistake/errors/computer virus programs) of DNA which produce weaker animals which are in turn deleted by "Unspecified Natural Magic" (blind pointless indifferent chance) and every once in a blue moon, a Windows-7 Package just magically appears to be allowed by that same "Unspecified Natural Magic" to be a success in the field. Which one of us has the real blind faith ????? You seem to conveniently ignore what I mentioned about the natural world having numerous engineered componants along with the blind forces of physics and chemistry for ridding itself of NOT ONLY the weaker ones, but also the FITTEST if they are in abundance.

Example: 40,000 perfectly healthy nothing wrong with them "Quercus kellogii" Black Oak Acorns on one acre of land are not fit to successfully thrive together. Built in checks and balances need to cull the majority of the fittest because the one acre may only support about 100 to 300 trees depending on the climatic environment present. Sometimes these are bacterial of fungal pathogens, sometimes they may be animals such as Squirels, Elk or Moose they may make conscious decisions to utilize them as a food source. Either way you look at it there is more going on than LUCKY ACCIDENTS.

You keep assuming that DNA is needed for all replication. It is not. Scientists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t claim that DNA was spawned spontaneously. Hence, they obviously have no experiment to generate something utilizing nothing but randomness. However, they do have experiments demonstrating the production of simple replicating compounds being generated via natural means. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a brief detour: http://www.talkorigi...CB/CB010_2.htmlNote Ã¢â‚¬Å“Emerging HypercyclesÃ¢â‚¬Â in particular.

This is getting old. See the response at the bottom of this post. BTW, talkorigins.org has nothing to do with science. It's a philosophical idealogical worldview website.

Miller used the spark to simulate lightning. How would they have shattered the amino acids? And what is your (reputable) source for him Ã¢â‚¬Å“building a trapÃ¢â‚¬Â? ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s another theory, Eocene.

Actually he used it to simulate lightning from Volcanoes. You need to look hard at all of the illustrations of his experiment. ALL pics of his experiment show and call it a trap because allowing them to be created inside that primitive atmosphere and then fall back into the water would have been detrimental to those amino acids. That's why in the typical illustration below you see listed by the researchers, not me or some other creationist source, there is a TRAP shown in big fat letters. Other atheists here I believe have also posted similar illustrations here of Miller's experiment.

BTW, this pic is from the "National Yang-Ming University" , Taipei, Taiwan, not some creationist website.

By the way Ã¢â‚¬â€œ youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re assuming what the primitive life forms were. All evolution needs to start is basic replication Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t require DNA. Why are you refusing to even acknowledge RNA or even simpler precursors?

Again, DNA has informational encoded instructions encrypted on it's protein molecules which are a real language. Evolutionist James A Shapiro calls DNA a true operational communications system. Inert molecules like H2O or any other molecule of nonliving matter do not contain any such encoded instructional languages for any specific replication etched into themselves. This is not about blind chemical reactions involving catalysts. DNA molecules and blind inert molecules cannot be compared to each other, with the exception of your holding to a gut felt religious grasping at straws worldview. Hanging on to an archaic Darwinian worldview of "a cell is nothing but a protoplasm of jello or pudding" substance, while conveniently ignoring that it is sophisticated intelligently directed piece of machinery keeps this subject purposely stuck in neutral spinning nowhere.

May I bring up the Murchison meteorite again Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it was found rich in organic compounds (such as amino acids) despite the heavy radiation in space.

Sure you can, there were six protein-type amino acids have been identified in that Murchison meteorite which fell in Australia in 1969. Both left- and right-handed isomers of each of these proteins were present Ã¢â‚¬Å“in roughly equal proportions,Ã¢â‚¬Â and thought to be of inorganic origin. This strengthens the conclusion that there is no natural way known which could produce all-left-handed amino acids, outside of living cells.

Also Ã¢â‚¬â€œ one mans book doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t disprove it. If he scientifically did disprove it Ã¢â‚¬â€œ IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure science would recognise it. You would have to provide a paper disproving the possibility.

I agree, such books as "Origin of the Species", "The Decent of Man", "The Blind Watchmaker", "The Selfish Gene", "The God Delusion", etc, etc, etc do not prove anything either and any scientific experimentation to prove those religious worldviews have sadly fallen short.

Again, there are no random mutations. If there are any random mutations (mistakes) which show up by accident, then they are nothing more than copying errors and the error correction mechanisms within DNA if healthy will destroy and delete them.

This was a quote from Eocene earlier. I'm just curious if this is the general opinion of most YEC's or if this is just your personal opinion. Honestly, in all my debates with the religious folks out there, this has never really come up, but I find it interesting.

I have heard a number of creationists talking about the toxic created in that experiment, and it makes no sense. In the context of Millers amino acids, they are not toxic. They're actually necessary building blocks for biochemical compounds. May I also bring up the Murchison meteorite. Over 100 amino acids were found on it, which were able to survive outer space. In comparison, the Earth ain't so difficult. By the way Miller "rescuing" the amino acids was a simulation of the oceans. In early Earth, the atmosphere was pretty crazy. It is possible life originated in geothermal vents - that would stop the UV. Although someone else will have to clarify that further, I'm no expert on Abiogenesis. First of all people with sickle cell can receive medical treatment. Secondly, if the individual receives it from only one parent and is heterozygous, they experience a milder condition and can leave completely normal lives if they avoid extreme exertion. Thirdly, people that have sickle cell disease occurs most commonly in people where (or descendents were) malaria is most common. There is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). As I already said, it decreases chances of getting malaria.So you're saying all bacteria have every possible form of antibiotic etc, stashed away somewhere to fight it? The vast majority of the bacteria die and usually only one or two are the ones that have the resistance - they then proliferate until the entire population is now resistant. I never said it was becoming a new species. I said it was a beneficial mutation. Some insects are now resistant to certain pesticides due to mutations. I was talking about random mutations first of all, not evolution. There is a genetic mutation that prevents the HIV virus from entering a cell. I never said they were evolving. I was talking about mutations. Lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Not all genetic disorders are beneficial, obviously. My example was beneficial if it was heterozygous - which is more likely. There was a slight disadvantage, but nothings perfect. An increased resistance to malaria in tropical or sub-tropical regions is beneficial.Just like in bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Once a random mutation occurs that offers a slight advantage, it spreads throughout the population. The population then has that gene - and the process occurs again. Anyway, that's a different discussion and I suggest we don't overload this thread.Irreducible complexity can evolve. http://en.wikipedia....ible.22_systemshttp://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB200.htmlhttp://skeptico.blog...ucible_com.html

Hope you don't mind me linking.

I apologize for the delay

1. So how does Millers experiment show the process of how life cam from un-life? All he showed was that amino acids can be produced, that is all. Anything else is inference and is NOT within the realm of science, more so fantasy.

2. Yes Sickle cell anemia can be treated... now days.. But that still doesn't show how a NEUTRAL mutation (it has bad an good effects, can lead to an advantageous adaption. During the "evolution" of the species there was no treatments and cures for the negative effects of mutations. Hence saying that getting a disease is advantageous is plain silly.

3. So what you have demonstrated with insects and bacteria is MICRO-evolution, in a better term their variablility.. You said yourself,

"I never said it was becoming a new species"

So what exactly are you trying to prove with your example? Your example doesn't show signs of "evolution", even you have admitted to this. Variablity of a species is true and has been seen, (as by your examples... Yet the species always stays within its pre-determined type)

4. Lactose intolerance means that the young produced will be easier to wean yes... That is assuming they are still alive due to their inability to absorb nutrients from their mothers milk...

5. Looking at just the supposed benefits and discounting the negatives is not the way to prove beneficial mutations exist.

6. You didn't answer my question... Which evolved first, the stomach, the liver or the pancreas...

This was a quote from Eocene earlier. I'm just curious if this is the general opinion of most YEC's or if this is just your personal opinion. Honestly, in all my debates with the religious folks out there, this has never really come up, but I find it interesting.

You may want to go over here to this topic which appears to be some years ago back in 2005. Take note however that most of this info has been around for some time longer. I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I believe most of them understand the basic operational system that works in every way as a commincations system does, but with thousands of times more sophistication than man's computer models do.

Even many of the evolutionists who believe in DNA working as an communications operating system understand how DNA actually works and not as some blind chanced mechanism that spits out random mistakes by the thousands only to hit luckily the Casino Jackpot every 10s of thousands of coin drops one day hitting it lucky without ever crashing (Death) before hand.

1. So how does Millers experiment show the process of how life cam from un-life? All he showed was that amino acids can be produced, that is all. Anything else is inference and is NOT within the realm of science, more so fantasy.

"that is all"? Amino acids forming via purely natural means is simply 'minor'? It's not the fully formed life as we see it today, but I wouldn't say it's nothing...

2. Yes Sickle cell anemia can be treated... now days.. But that still doesn't show how a NEUTRAL mutation (it has bad an good effects, can lead to an advantageous adaption. During the "evolution" of the species there was no treatments and cures for the negative effects of mutations. Hence saying that getting a disease is advantageous is plain silly.

There are two forms of sickle cell - one can be fatal, the other is actually quite neutral - presuming you don't undergo extreme exertion. This is the one I'm talking about and is the one that is quite common in areas where malaria is expected. That advantageous adaptation is that they have a higher chance of being immune to malaria, presuming they have the milder condition. In that case, it is a beneficial mutation.

3. So what you have demonstrated with insects and bacteria is MICRO-evolution, in a better term their variablility.. You said yourself,

"I never said it was becoming a new species"

So what exactly are you trying to prove with your example? Your example doesn't show signs of "evolution", even you have admitted to this. Variablity of a species is true and has been seen, (as by your examples... Yet the species always stays within its pre-determined type)

I was proving that random mutations occured that proved to be beneficial and then spread throughout the culture via quickened natural selection. An accumulation of such events could give rise to bigger changes. If you want examples of observed speciation, google it.

4. Lactose intolerance means that the young produced will be easier to wean yes... That is assuming they are still alive due to their inability to absorb nutrients from their mothers milk...

Lactose intolerance is not fatal.

5. Looking at just the supposed benefits and discounting the negatives is not the way to prove beneficial mutations exist.

I wasn't discounting the negatives. An inability to undergo extreme exertion is relatively minor in comparison to malaria immunity.

6. You didn't answer my question... Which evolved first, the stomach, the liver or the pancreas...

And I'm going to guess you didn't look at the links. They explain irreducible complexity better than I could.

Eocene, I'll get back to you asap. I have to refine my understanding of the Miller experiment first

"that is all"? Amino acids forming via purely natural means is simply 'minor'? It's not the fully formed life as we see it today, but I wouldn't say it's nothing...There are two forms of sickle cell - one can be fatal, the other is actually quite neutral - presuming you don't undergo extreme exertion. This is the one I'm talking about and is the one that is quite common in areas where malaria is expected. That advantageous adaptation is that they have a higher chance of being immune to malaria, presuming they have the milder condition. In that case, it is a beneficial mutation. I was proving that random mutations occured that proved to be beneficial and then spread throughout the culture via quickened natural selection. An accumulation of such events could give rise to bigger changes. If you want examples of observed speciation, google it.Lactose intolerance is not fatal.I wasn't discounting the negatives. An inability to undergo extreme exertion is relatively minor in comparison to malaria immunity.And I'm going to guess you didn't look at the links. They explain irreducible complexity better than I could.

Eocene, I'll get back to you asap. I have to refine my understanding of the Miller experiment first

Hmmm... yes....ok?

1. Ok lets assume that amino acids can somehow form randomly in nature with no help from anything, (though this has never been observed)... IF it happened underwater near a geothermal vent and IF a cell was able to form, despite all the coding in DNA and symbiosis of all organelles... Wouldn't the cell membrane burst due to osmosis.... (This has been observed where animal cells are put into water, and after they swell too much, they burst)... However this is a moot point as we have made alot of assumptions to get there.

2. Again you have said it yourself... "the other is actually quite neutral - presuming you don't undergo extreme exertion"

So in a "survival of the fittest" world, where everything competes against each other do you think that not being able to "undergo extreme exertion", (for example a "fight or flight mechanism"), do you think that this is JUST a neutral mutation. Or perhaps not being able to run away from predators.. just may be a BAD thing.. perhaps??...

Even so, neutral (as you said it was), still is NOT advantageous...

3. And basically you have assumed that variation can (somehow), bring about changes to the species... Assumptions aren't proof dude.. I could say I have been to the moon, but does that make it true that I have actually been to the moon?

Furthermore, just look at how natural selection works and you will see a DECREASE in genetic potential, which is the OPPOSITE of what evolution is trying to achieve... This has been said on another thread.. Perhaps give it a read

4. Lactose intollerance affects the organisms ability to gain nutrients from milk... Thus a baby, (out in the wild remember, there were no special formulas back when everything evolved), will be either a runt or have stunted growth or die... Hardly an advantaegous let alone neutral mutation.

What I have said is how the real world works. Think about that before trying to put fantasyland evolution into reality